Opinion
February 23, 2000
Judgments, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Daniel Sullivan, J.), both rendered April 2, 1997, convicting defendant, after a jury trial and upon his plea of guilty, of robbery in the first degree, and sentencing him to concurrent terms of 12 1/2 to 25 years and 4 to 8 years, respectively, unanimously affirmed.
Erica M. Fitzgerald, for Respondent.
Elizabeth B. Emmons, for Defendant-Appellant.
TOM, J.P., RUBIN, ANDRIAS, BUCKLEY, FRIEDMAN, JJ.
The court's summary denial of defendant's speedy trial motion was proper because the motion papers were facially insufficient. Since the motion did not contain sworn allegations that the People failed to declare their readiness for trial, it lacked factual allegations indicating entitlement to a dismissal of the charges (see, People v. Lomax, 50 N.Y.2d 351, 357; People v. Dinkins, 261 A.D.2d 171, 690 N.Y.S.2d 532; People v. Jackson, 259 A.D.2d 376). Defendant's allegation that he had not contributed to any of the delay did not necessarily imply a lack of readiness on the part of the People (cf., People ex rel. Franklin v. Warden, 31 N.Y.2d 498, 501-502). Moreover, that allegation was patently inaccurate since, as the court was aware, defendant had made suppression motions.
The challenged portions of the prosecutor's summation were generally responsive to the defense summation and fair comment on the evidence (see, People v. Overlee, 236 A.D.2d 134, lv denied 91 N.Y.2d 976; People v. D'Alessandro, 184 A.D.2d 114, 118-119, lv denied 81 N.Y.2d 884). In any event, were we to find any of the challenged comments to be improper, we would find the error to be harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt.
We perceive no abuse of sentencing discretion.
THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF SUPREME COURT, APPELLATE DIVISION, FIRST DEPARTMENT.